"However, now that a person has been charged, I want to take this opportunity to reiterate the need to respect the judicial process which has now commenced."

At the end of a two-day pre-trial directions hearing that concluded on Wednesday, it is clear WA is in the throes of the highest-profile murder trial in the state's history.

Advertisement

Mr Edwards has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Sarah Spiers, 18, Jane Rimmer, 23, and Ciara Glennon, 27, in 1996 and 1997, and has denied raping a 17-year-old girl in Karrakatta Cemetery in 1995 and attacking an 18-year-old woman in her Huntingdale home in 1988.

The case in the WA Supreme Court is set to be one of the most "long, drawn-out and complex" legal processes to date, and with more than one million pages of evidence, Curtin University media law academic Joseph Fernandez said it was now more important than ever to understand both the WA media and the public's role in the case.

Here's why.

The case so far

Mr Edwards was first arrested and charged over the murders of Ciara Glennon and Jane Rimmer in December 2016.

He was later also charged with the murder of Sarah Spiers.

He entered a not guilty plea in September last year and in one of the case's first big decisions, it was determined his case should not be heard before a jury, but by a judge alone.

In a decision supported by state prosecutors and Mr Edwards' defence team Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall was appointed presiding judge – a role also characterised as a 'fact-finder'.

A judge-alone trial means a jury is not needed, and it's up to the judge to consider all of the evidence, whether it is admissible or relevant, decide the facts and hand down the verdict.

By eliminating a jury, a judge-alone trial also removes the difficult task of finding jurors who had no knowledge or prior notions about the case beforehand. This is a real challenge in the case of Mr Edwards, Dr Fernandez said.

"The Claremont case has attracted huge interest because of the number of murders that occurred, the mystery that persisted for more than two decades regarding who was responsible, the delay in charging a suspect, the multiple theories that were circulating about who did it, and more recently the nature of the details that are emerging about the crimes," he said.

"While the media has had a relatively free rein in discussing the case all these years, now that a suspect has been charged and the court process has begun, the ground rules for reporting on the case have changed substantially."

And while the decision to hear Mr Edwards' case in a judge-alone trial may seem like it would streamline the process of newspapers, TV stations and other news outlets to publish what they liked without a jury to worry about, Dr Fernandez said it was important to remember that's not the case.

"It reduces the risk of the jury’s minds being contaminated by prejudicial information from outsidethe court process being published," he said. "[But] that does not mean the rules of contempt are automatically relaxed."

Court reporting in WA is subject to a number of processes and procedures.Credit:Jessica Shapiro

Court reporting and the Claremont case

Australia's justice system is built on the presumption of innocence, and it is prosecutors' job to prove someone is guilty rather than the defence's job to prove they aren't.

Along with that comes responsibility on the part of the media to be fair, and not to prejudice an outcome.

But according to Dr Fernandez, the definition of "media" can also extend far beyond WA's established news outlets.

"The term 'media' itself can be a problem because these days information can be reported orpublished to the world by a huge range of 'reporters' and publishers," he said.

"These include professional journalists and their media organisations, and others who are not employed as professional journalists but are also able to publish.

"This latter group includes those who publish on social media, freelance journalists, bloggers, and citizen journalists.

"It comprises those who publish for a living and those who don’t, those who are obligated to a professional code of practice and those who are not."

Essentially, if you make a post about the Claremont case on social media you are now considered a "publisher".

And while mainstream outlets are bigger targets for legal liability, Dr Fernandez said it was important those who don't even consider themselves as 'media' know they could still be subject to the same laws and processes as the big players.

'Media' ... comprises those who publish for a living and those who don’t, those who are obligated to a professional code of practice and those who are not.

Dr Joseph Fernandez

So this means things like contempt of court and suppression orders are just as important for everyone to understand.

Terms you need to know

Contempt of court is serious. It means words or actions that could interfere with the proper administration of justice, or those that show a disregard for the authority of the courts.

It encompasses things like misbehaving in a courtroom, ignoring court orders, interfering with a jury or publishing material that is considered sub judice.

According to Dr Fernandez, sub judice is the most common type of contempt and it aims to stop the publication of material that could prejudice a trial.

Prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo (right) leaves the Supreme Court of Western Australia on Tuesday. Ms Barbagallo is the lead prosecutor in Bradley Robert Edwards' murder trial. Credit:AAP Image/Richard Wainwright

That includes implying an offender is guilty – such as in the case of Lindy Chamberlain – or publishing the details an offender's past that has not been deemed relevant by a judge, like in the case of Derryn Hinch and Jill Meagher's murderer Adrian Ernest Bayley.

In the case of Mr Edwards, publishers need to be extremely careful.

"One aspect of the law of sub judice that the media finds scary is that for the offence to be committed, it's not necessary to prove that a person intended to interfere with the administration of justice, so a person can unintentionally commit the offence," Dr Fernandez said.

"As a court process is under way the laws of contempt that are aimed at preventing any interferencewith the administration of justice have kicked in. This means there are strict rules about what the media can report."

If you are found to be in contempt of court by publishing sub judice material, you can either be jailed or fined a substantial amount of money.

Suppression orders are also in place for a reason. They help protect the identity of victims in criminal matters and in some cases can prevent the media from printing the name of the offender because the victim might then be identifiable – for example, if they are a relative.

They are also used to prevent the court from publishing certain evidence, and while Australia operates on an 'open justice' principle, it's important suppression orders are followed or it could interfer with the process of justice.

It can be difficult for other publishers to find out about these orders, which is why it's important to err on the side of caution.

"The consequence of breaking the rules can be severe because the penalties include fines orimprisonment or both," Dr Fernandez said.

And while as readers it may be frustrating to see terms like 'alleged', 'accused', and 'claimed' in court stories, it is important to understand why they are used.

Because while it may seem black-and-white to readers if someone is guilty or not, the media needs to wait until the end of the judicial process to report whether or not this is the case.

Dr Fernandez warned in serious cases any example of someone failing to follow these processes or procedures could even see a trial aborted, or a wrongful conviction – which has the potential to see hours of police and legal work wasted.

Why this matters

The Claremont murders were committed decades ago. The victims' families are waiting for justice. A man has been charged, who is yet to be proven guilty.

Dr Fernandez said a failure by any section of the WA community to adhere to the justice system could have severe consequences, and it was important to understand just how much hinged on the outcome of the Claremont trial.

Sketch of Bradley Robert Edwards.

"A series of serious crimes were committed," he said.

"They remained unsolved for more than two decades. Finally there has been a breakthrough, after many false starts with innocent people having been implicated.

"The victims’ families and all of society have waited too long for answers and for closure.

"There is now a real chance that the answers and the closure will come. It is in everyone’s interest that the proper administration of justice takes place in this case. Too much is at stake."